Covid-19: Vaccination of Children

Debate between Andrew Lewer and Chris Green

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Dame Angela. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for securing a debate on this immensely important topic and for speaking so convincingly.

Despite what has been said, the JCVI’s recommendation on the mass vaccination of children aged 12 to 15 is clear. “The margin of benefit” in vaccinating healthy 12 to 15-year-olds is “too small” to support such a policy. That was the conclusion reached when the question was asked, as it should be in the case of medical decisions, about what would be in the best interests of our children’s health.

Throughout the pandemic we have continually been told of the importance of following the science. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) to her ministerial position, but will she explain why we are now disregarding the science and the experts who clearly said that it is not necessary nor advisable on the basis of the evidence we have for that cohort to receive a covid-19 vaccine? Given “fake news”, some people seize on any lack of clarity or inconsistency to be anti-vax, which I am not, and that is a real risk when the Government override trust, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) delineated so well.

If it is because of extraneous factors that have been mentioned in recent days, such as protecting children’s mental health and ensuring they miss no more school, it must be said that both of those problems have their root in Government decision making. School closures are a political choice. Testing regimes are at the bureaucratic insistence of the Department for Education. The fear that some children might have of dying from covid-19 has come from a created climate of fear, because the evidence shows that both children who are perfectly healthy and those who have underlying health conditions face a mortality rate from covid-19 of two in every 1 million. Children are therefore not at risk of death or serious illness from covid-19. In fact, most children are asymptomatic or experience a mild illness. Given that most vaccines do not prevent transmission and that those most at risk due to age or underlying health conditions have been double-vaccinated, this recommendation is not only unnecessary, but could be dangerous. We should be protecting our children and not taking unnecessary risks with their health in favour of some vague notion of perceived benefit to wider society.

[Chris Green]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that initially the Government’s perspective was that we need a double vaccination for both protection and longevity of protection, yet 12 to 15-year-olds will receive only one dose, giving them relatively short-term protection? That is not consistent with the general stated aims of the vaccine programme.

[Andrew Lewer]

My hon. Friend very capably highlights yet another inconsistency. It is important to remember that any child who gets seriously ill or, heaven forbid, dies from a vaccine does so because of a policy decision and not a disease.

Turning to parental responsibility, many constituents who are parents have expressed their deep unease at the Government’s recommendation, and even more so that under the ill-advised Gillick principle children will be able to consent to taking the vaccine against their parents’ wishes. The Gillick principle has been cited as something that is set in stone and could never be changed, and as a sort of legal precedent as if this House, which exists to make law, could not override it, as many other things have been overridden apparently quite straightforwardly in the last couple of years.

The Gillick principle—it is unfortunate it is named after her given her background—means that children will be able to consent to taking the vaccine against their parents’ wishes. It has long been accepted in this country and in the thinking of my political background and heritage that children under the age of 18, and certainly under 16, should be the responsibility of their parents, that they should be guided and protected by them, and that parents, as adults, will make decisions in the best interests of their children. Only in exceptional circumstances should agents of the state interfere in that relationship and override a parent’s wish for their child.

I am deeply concerned by the increasing trend away from the Gillick principle. Just last week, we saw the High Court hand down a deeply concerning judgment that children under the age of 16 will be able to consent to taking puberty blockers without the need for parental permission. We are descending rapidly down a slippery slope. It is a mistake to allow children to circumvent parental control, especially when the long-term consequences of the vaccines are not yet clear. There has been limited research and data collected on the efficacy and safety of these vaccines for children.

I have been contacted by local teachers in my constituency of Northampton South who are receiving concerned emails from parents accusing schools of implementing this policy. I want it to be clear that this is a Government proposal and schools will have no liability in carrying out injections. I also want clarification from the Minister that vaccines will not be administered by school staff.

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill

Debate between Andrew Lewer and Chris Green

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewer]

I think that business models that are rooted in their communities and have the wellbeing of those communities at their heart, while enabling individuals to be enterprising within them, are very beneficial, particularly in having the value of local knowledge of what will be a success, rather than simply a balance-sheet approach.

Investment in emerging green markets and technologies, in line with Government green investment strategies, can be beneficial and should be encouraged, but they are not without their own risks, and that is one of my worries. Investors must be aware that there are risks associated with green shares, as there are with any shares. My worry—and that, I believe, of some of my colleagues—is that the well-intentioned ethical ambitions attached to this instrument may expose them to risks that they may not have foreseen. I am concerned that the Bill exposes the co-operative sector to the unintended risks of being exploited as investment vehicles, rather than purpose-driven organisations. There is a balance to be struck there.

As with many of these societies and co-operatives, people have saved up for years to invest their savings in capital, and I want to ensure that they do not underestimate the associated risks of green shares proposed by the Bill. Just because it has the word “green” attached to it does not mean that it is a guaranteed way of making money or is a sensible investment. Although it is probably a slightly politically incorrect cross-reference in the context of this debate, I am reminded of the car industry. People often muse, “If only I’d invested massively in the car industry in 1900, I’d have made a fortune.” Actually, nearly all the car companies that were founded in 1900 led to a loss for their founders, because only a few of them prevailed. Although the overall concept of investing in the automotive industry in 1900 was good, it actually led to a lot of people losing a lot of money.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the labelling of something as green? We might think particularly about electric cars. We have to be aware that when mining and other processes take place for the batteries and other components in an electric car they can in no way be seen as environmentally friendly or green, even though the car is labelled as such.

[Andrew Lewer]

That is absolutely true. Although, of course, there are some things that are labelled green in which I have complete confidence, others cause serious concern for the reasons outlined.

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Debate between Andrew Lewer and Chris Green

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 13th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewer]

The hon. Gentleman provides a good illustration of how personal experience informs rather than inflames the debate. His point also illustrates the importance of local areas and schools having a measure of control and responsibility. That is not always delivered by an attitude of, “The man in Whitehall knows best.” There is space for guidance—that is the purpose of our discussion today—but guidance and over-prescription in a country the size of ours, with the number of schools we have, would be unwelcome.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of schools take a very responsible approach when designating their school uniform? We might be looking at a relatively small number of exceptions when we talk about more expensive uniforms.

[Andrew Lewer]

What my hon. Friend says is true in the overwhelming majority of cases. It is interesting; I have found from my meetings with larger schoolwear suppliers, and the intermediate businesses that provide wholesale stock of those garments to a local area, that some of them have prevailed on schools to take a more measured and responsible approach. It is a tribute to people in the sector that although they could say, “Yes, you should absolutely have a cerise lining and charge £250,” they have said that they do not think that is a very responsible approach. People may respond, “Oh, the sector would say that, wouldn’t it? It’s just in it to gouge everybody.” That is not, I hope, something that we would necessarily say about other sectors, such as the defence sector or the theatre. This sector, being so close to the people it serves and so embedded in the communities it serves, overall does take its responsibilities particularly seriously.

Nobody suggests that a uniform makes or breaks a school, but if a school is seeking to change and drive up standards—possibly in response to not very satisfactory Ofsted results, or in response to parent pressure to step up their game—a uniform makes the statement that it is on a mission to do that. Also, schools with a much longer tradition of success that they want to keep up encourage pride in their uniform—pride in their brand, and in what they have achieved for the young people that they serve. Uniform has an important role to play there.

I went to a state school with a comprehensive intake, Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School in Ashbourne in Derbyshire. I owe it so much that I mentioned it in my maiden speech. It has a traditional uniform, including right through the sixth form. That is not why it is a good school, but it plays its part.